incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2013 08:15:57 GMT
Marcus, let me know I can install qemu-guest-agent during
postinstallation phase of the systemvmtemplate, and in
patches/systemvm you can configure cloud-early-config or a script
which runs this service? During startup of a systemvm template,
systemvm.iso is used to patch this template to create one of ssvm,
cpvm or rvm.

Regards.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a request that if we provide a system vm going forward that it
> have virtio_console support from early on, as well as qemu-ga
> (qemu-guest-agent) service started before cloud-early-config, so we
> can use it to control the system vms on KVM.
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti
> <sudha.ponnaganti@citrix.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just want to summarize what QA is doing for 4.1 validation and 4.2 so we are all
on the same page.
>>
>> 4.1
>> * we will use 4.0 template for IPV4 testing ( all QA uses this one) -  (Even for
this VMWare template is broken [1] and that is a different topic)
>> *Sangeetha who is testing IPV6 or any others who are interested can use template
provided by Sheng.
>>
>> 4.2 ( Master)
>> * Continue to use older templates (4.0) temporarily till Rohit makes the template
process streamlined for all HVs
>> * Reason is being that blockers are being logged against new procedure done by Rohit
[2]. It need to be tested and all templates ( xen/vmware/kvm) need to completed.
>> * once he gives a go ahead all QA will consume that.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1252
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1462
>>
>> Hope this approach is fine for everyone.
>>
>> Thanks
>> /Sudha
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:13 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: What are the System VM Templates for ASF 4.1 Release?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:47:25AM -0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
>>> <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2/27/13 10:12 AM, "Sheng Yang" <sheng@yasker.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Per this case, if people thinks systemvm template can be hosted
>>> >>alone, I would suggest use the tested ipv6 template for the whole
>>> >>4.1 release, to avoid confusion.
>>> >
>>> > As long as it is documented, it shouldn't cause too much confusion.
>>> > People are not likely to be using ipv6 by accident, especially since
>>> > it is considered experimental.
>>> > I am sure your template is fine, but an abundance of caution at this
>>> > stage of the game would lead me to believe that it is best to go
>>> > with the 2-pronged approach. If we were making this decision 3 weeks
>>> > ago, I'd say, 'yeah, probably OK'.
>>>
>>> I've sent out the notice when I branch out for IPv6, said it would
>>> need a template. I stated so again when check in for 4.1 branch. And I
>>> opened the bug for fixing this issue in 4.1. Thanks to Rohit, we
>>> started discussion [3]. Everything looks fine.
>>>
>>> But this thing still happened. Bug changed to 4.1 fix version, the
>>> issue raised by QA at last minute.
>>>
>>> I don't know how loud should I speak if we need a template for IPv6 in
>>> 4.1. Seems nobody cares.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>Document the step to switch is fine, but two set of systemvm
>>> >>template for one release would be tricky I think.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, but it is experimental.
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>And the change to the ipv6 systemvm template, is it just contained
>>> >>upgraded dnsmasq(version 6.22). That's it, nothing changed beside
>>> >>that. I kind of believe it should be mostly the same as before,
>>> >>tested enough for default template.
>>> >
>>> > These are not strong, confident statements. To make it simpler, we
>>> > could use approach 'B' with the caveat that it does not run the
>>> > apt-get unless some explicit action is taken by the cloud admin. For example:
>>> >  - a global flag (systemvm.ipv6.enable) or
>>> >  - whenever an ipv6 subnet is created.
>>>
>>> I don't think the thing would depends on if my statement is strong or confident.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should let systemvm run apt-get things.
>>>
>>> According to what I observed in the community, I think probably it's
>>> right that people not quite interested in ipv6.
>>
>> To be clear, I personally am *very* interested in getting IPv6 support.
>> I think what we are talking about is the fact that this is experimental for 4.1 (as
previously agreed).
>>
>>>
>>> Probably we just revert the UI for 4.1 branch, and make API usable
>>> with updated template.
>>
>> +1 to that approach.
>>
>> And another +1 to the implied implementation of IPv6, plus a new template, plus a
new template build process, plus the UI, plus lots of testing...  to make IPv6 support a full
feature for 4.2.
>>
>>>
>>> --Sheng
>>>
>>> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/10785
>>> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/11387
>>> [3]
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.cloudstack.devel/12183/focus
>>> =15159
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>VMware template may need some work, I remember last time we upgrade
>>> >>the vmware template by installing some vmware tools, which didn't
>>> >>affect other two templates(KVM and Xen). We would need to do it
>>> >>again, Kelven should able to help with it.
>>> >>
>>> >>--Sheng
>>> >>
>>> >>On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers
>>> >><chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:23:04PM -0800, Chiradeep Vittal wrote:
>>> >>>> Another work-around may be to not require new systemvms unless
>>> >>>>the ipv6  feature is required in which case:
>>> >>>> A. We provide the bits of the systemvm of whatever Sheng's been
>>> >>>>testing  with (with the caveat that it is under development/beta)
>>> >>>>B. Write a patch for cloud-early-config (or ssh in after VR is
>>> >>>>created) to
>>> >>>> apt-get update + apt-get install <ipv6 packages>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I like option A.  We had actually already agreed that IPv6 would
>>> >>> be considered "experimental" in this release anyway.  So if
>>> >>> someone wants to try it out with 4.1, IMO it's OK to have them do
>>> >>> a little more work to get the correct system VM.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As long as we document it, I think that option A is the right one.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Other thoughts?
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 2/26/13 10:15 PM, "Rohit Yadav" <bhaisaab@apache.org>
wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Sheng Yang <sheng@yasker.org>
wrote:
>>> >>>> >> When I first report the bug
>>> >>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> I've set the target for 4.1 because of ipv6 need.
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> When Rohit fixed it, it was changed to 4.2, sorry I
didn't
>>> >>>> >>aware of that.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Yes Sheng is correct, I was responsible for that because
the
>>> >>>> >feature/code to create systemvms was not even started and
since
>>> >>>> >I started working on it after the code freeze, I moved the
>>> >>>> >version to
>>> >>>> >4.2
>>> >>>> >It was only recently when I found out that ipv6 is going
to make
>>> >>>> >it in 4.1, in that case the feature is code complete [1]
and
>>> >>>> >we've an automated jenkins job. The only problems are:
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >- Code syncing: I did not cherry-pick the code to 4.1
>>> >>>> >- Testing: We need to test against 4.1 branch that the
>>> >>>> >appliance/template really works [2]
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >I'm sorry Sheng if ipv6 won't make in 4.1 because of this.
But I
>>> >>>> >would try my best to test/fix the template for Xen at least
>>> >>>> >before 28/2, I really want to see your feature go in 4.1
Since,
>>> >>>> >4.1 is frozen, community would have to make an exception
to at
>>> >>>> >least allow the new systemvms templates (if not the code)
to be
>>> >>>> >used in case it works fine for all three (kvm, xen and vmware)
>>> >>>> >and we could still fix/test ahead of time, we still have
few
>>> >>>> >more weeks before the release; otherwise we can always use
the same old template.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Comments, suggestions, especially from Chip and ppmc?
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >Regards.
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1066
>>> >>>> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340
>>> >>>> >
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> --Sheng
>>> >>>> >>
>>> >>>> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Chip Childers
>>> >>>> >> <chip.childers@sungard.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 02:07:37PM -0800, Chandan
>>> >>>> >>> Purushothama
>>> >>>>wrote:
>>> >>>> >>>> Building System VM Template is a 4.2 feature
>>> >>>> >>>>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1340.
 The
>>> >>>> >>>>system
>>> >>>>VM
>>> >>>> >>>>Templates posted by Rohit is for the Master
branch
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>http://jenkins.cloudstack.org/view/master/job/build-systemvm-m
>>> >>>>>>>>aster/
>>> >>>>>>>>las
>>> >>>> >>>>tSuccessfulBuild/artifact/tools/appliance/dist/
. I am
>>> >>>> >>>>referring to the ASF 4.1 Release System VM Templates
in my question.
>>> >>>> >>>
>>> >>>> >>> So in that case, I guess the only system VMs we
have to use
>>> >>>> >>> now
>>> >>>>are the
>>> >>>> >>> same ones we used for 4.0 (which were inherited
from Citrix
>>> >>>>pre-ASF).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >
>>>

Mime
View raw message